Jump to content

Ilyrio Mopatis and slavery


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, frenin said:

After that, the South turned from a society with slaves, so to speak, to a slave society. They would not ever turned it down even when it was becoming increasingly unprofitable because it was their way to be and it had a cohesive glue  to i for all the white southerners, rich and poor alike, which is why slavery ended they opted for the best next thing, kkk and segregation. I'd say that slavery in the inmediate antebellum south is an example of a society being left behind for keeping slaves but categorically refusing to do so because they are evil bigots... Kinda like Slavers Bay.

I clearly remember having a conversation about this exact topic with you a while ago, i thought you have understood it then.

And why do you think they would have kept to slavery no matter what? Slavery had been in the crisis once before, when tobacco plantations were exhausted in the late 18th century, but then Eli Whitney's invention of cotton gin saved slave labor in the South.

Roman Empire was the example of the slave society you describe: slaves were everywhere, with some areas having up to 10% (or maybe even 30%?) population as slaves. Slave-owning was very much part of identity of higher classes, and even middle-class Romans owned slaves. If you didn't own a slave, you were seen as poor, uncivilized, and even worse. Yet once conditions changed - once slavery was no longer profitable - they turned from slavery to colonate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

And why do you think they would have kept to slavery no matter what? Slavery had been in the crisis once before, when tobacco plantations were exhausted in the late 18th century, but then Eli Whitney's invention of cotton gin saved slave labor in the South.

Roman Empire was the example of the slave society you describe: slaves were everywhere, with some areas having up to 10% (or maybe even 30%?) population as slaves. Slave-owning was very much part of identity of higher classes, and even middle-class Romans owned slaves. If you didn't own a slave, you were seen as poor, uncivilized, and even worse. Yet once conditions changed - once slavery was no longer profitable - they turned from slavery to colonate.

Had they kept conquering, they would have kept working their slaves to death, and then replacing them with fresh slaves, like the sugar plantation owners did, until 1807.

Essos has that constant resupply, but it can be interrupted, if the  Dothraki are taken out of the trade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

And why do you think they would have kept to slavery no matter what? Slavery had been in the crisis once before, when tobacco plantations were exhausted in the late 18th century, but then Eli Whitney's invention of cotton gin saved slave labor in the South.

Because slavery became ingrained within their culture. It was everywhere and it was the very cornerstone of their society, to quote the vicepresident of the Confederacy. It was taught in schools ever since infancy, it was reinforced in the church and so on. It had an obvious political power with the 3/5s clause that gave the South far too much political power for them to give it up willingly.

With the North's increasing opposition to it, the South, no matter status felt that an attack of slavery was an attack of the South and they conflated both things even more. 

Slavery also had a racist unifying undertone, unlike that of Rome, if you were white, no matter how poor, you could always find solace that you were not a slave and thus black. That's the very reason why their own version of the Sons of the Harpy was so popular and why they fought so hard to "redeem" the South after reconstruction.

Slavery became much more than an "economical" tool, it was their life. They weren't going to give it up anytime soon, hell that's why they chose to go to war in the first place. You're ignoring the cultural and ideological changes that occured in both south and north to prove a point.

 

 

Slavers Bay is too much Antebellum South for me to believe slavery was just a money thing.

Edited by frenin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, SeanF said:

Had they kept conquering, they would have kept working their slaves to death, and then replacing them with fresh slaves, like the sugar plantation owners did, until 1807.

Essos has that constant resupply, but it can be interrupted, if the  Dothraki are taken out of the trade.

Agreed.

16 hours ago, frenin said:

Because slavery became ingrained within their culture. It was everywhere and it was the very cornerstone of their society, to quote the vicepresident of the Confederacy. It was taught in schools ever since infancy, it was reinforced in the church and so on. It had an obvious political power with the 3/5s clause that gave the South far too much political power for them to give it up willingly.

With the North's increasing opposition to it, the South, no matter status felt that an attack of slavery was an attack of the South and they conflated both things even more. 

Slavery also had a racist unifying undertone, unlike that of Rome, if you were white, no matter how poor, you could always find solace that you were not a slave and thus black. That's the very reason why their own version of the Sons of the Harpy was so popular and why they fought so hard to "redeem" the South after reconstruction.

Slavery became much more than an "economical" tool, it was their life. They weren't going to give it up anytime soon, hell that's why they chose to go to war in the first place. You're ignoring the cultural and ideological changes that occured in both south and north to prove a point.

 

 

Slavers Bay is too much Antebellum South for me to believe slavery was just a money thing.

I think I get the point.

Still, if it is so ingrained, how can it be permanently ended? Every time slavery was ended by force (which from what you said would appear to be the only way possible in the Slaver's Bay), it was because a major military power with ingrained anti-slavery stance came and said "nope". Be it Royal Navy or, in US case, Northern states.

In other words, unless Daenerys a) maintains armed presence and b) introduces alternative economic system, slavery will return to Slaver's Bay as soon as she leaves. And she needs to do both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

Agreed.

I think I get the point.

Still, if it is so ingrained, how can it be permanently ended? Every time slavery was ended by force (which from what you said would appear to be the only way possible in the Slaver's Bay), it was because a major military power with ingrained anti-slavery stance came and said "nope". Be it Royal Navy or, in US case, Northern states.

In other words, unless Daenerys a) maintains armed presence and b) introduces alternative economic system, slavery will return to Slaver's Bay as soon as she leaves. And she needs to do both.

Haiti  is an example of slavery being ended permanently, by exterminating the slave owners.

The Ghiscari slave owners are parasites.  They add nothing to the local economy .  Their trade in slaves is of no benefit to most of the population.  Their disappearance won’t damage the local economy.

Edited by SeanF
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

Haiti  is an example of slavery being ended permanently, by exterminating the slave owners.

 

Hardly, considering slavery is still a feature in Haiti. And a very prominent one - 2014., it was the country with second-highest prevalence of slavery in the world, behind only Mauretania (although "only" 2% slaves is not that high by historical standards).

More importantly, the initial revolt was a failure in terms of ending large-scale slavery. Yes, Haitians did massacre the slaveowners and established their own indigenous government by Louverture. And yes, slavery was legally ended (thanks to inspiration by the French Revolution, by the way).

But it didn't last long. Because fundamental economic reforms had not been done, revolutionaries under Toussant Louverture... forced laborers back onto plantations. To work. With no pay. Under threat of force.

Yeah, definitely not slavery. :drunk:

When Haitian independence was recognized in 1804., slaves, pardon, workers, thought they were finally free... except Dessalines - Louverture's successor - again used the army to keep them on their plantations. He was killed for it in 1806., but his successor Christophe continued his policies.

But the plantation system under forced labor proved unprofitable, and so slavery was finally ended - by breaking up the large plantations and parcelling them out to slaves, who from then on would work on small plots and only give a portion of income to the big bosses and the government.

Yes, slavery was ended in Haiti. For economic reasons, and it was done by introduction of feudalism.

Sure, it may have been impossible without an initial revolution, but my original point:

2 hours ago, Aldarion said:

unless Daenerys a) maintains armed presence and b) introduces alternative economic system, slavery will return to Slaver's Bay as soon as she leaves. And she needs to do both.

Still stands. Exterminating the slave owners is not enough.

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

The Ghiscari slave owners are parasites.  They add nothing to the local economy .  Their trade in slaves is of no benefit to most of the population.  Their disappearance won’t damage the local economy.

Do we actually know that? Fact that their armies are comprised of slaves would indicate that they do not just trade in slaves, but also depend on them for most functions of the state.

And if so, then we come back to my original point: merely "breaking the chains" is not actually enough. She needs to introduce something to replace the slavery - which, considering some of her own people were asking to be sold back into slavery, she had apparently failed to do. From what I remember, she did free the slaves, but the old Masters still own mostly everything, including the land.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

Hardly, considering slavery is still a feature in Haiti. And a very prominent one - 2014., it was the country with second-highest prevalence of slavery in the world, behind only Mauretania (although "only" 2% slaves is not that high by historical standards).

More importantly, the initial revolt was a failure in terms of ending large-scale slavery. Yes, Haitians did massacre the slaveowners and established their own indigenous government by Louverture. And yes, slavery was legally ended (thanks to inspiration by the French Revolution, by the way).

But it didn't last long. Because fundamental economic reforms had not been done, revolutionaries under Toussant Louverture... forced laborers back onto plantations. To work. With no pay. Under threat of force.

Yeah, definitely not slavery. :drunk:

When Haitian independence was recognized in 1804., slaves, pardon, workers, thought they were finally free... except Dessalines - Louverture's successor - again used the army to keep them on their plantations. He was killed for it in 1806., but his successor Christophe continued his policies.

But the plantation system under forced labor proved unprofitable, and so slavery was finally ended - by breaking up the large plantations and parcelling them out to slaves, who from then on would work on small plots and only give a portion of income to the big bosses and the government.

Yes, slavery was ended in Haiti. For economic reasons, and it was done by introduction of feudalism.

Sure, it may have been impossible without an initial revolution, but my original point:

Still stands. Exterminating the slave owners is not enough.

Do we actually know that? Fact that their armies are comprised of slaves would indicate that they do not just trade in slaves, but also depend on them for most functions of the state.

And if so, then we come back to my original point: merely "breaking the chains" is not actually enough. She needs to introduce something to replace the slavery - which, considering some of her own people were asking to be sold back into slavery, she had apparently failed to do. From what I remember, she did free the slaves, but the old Masters still own mostly everything, including the land.

Break up the masters’ estates, and pay the soldiers and administrators salaries.  Dany does the latter, but misses the former. But,  I expect she’ll do exactly that, in TWOW.

Chattel slavery is never actually *necessary* for economic development.  If anything, it retards it, by delaying the introduction of new forms of technology.  Had the Romans etc.  never captured vast numbers of slaves, they’d have developed other forms of working, and their society would have been a lot more peaceful.  In fact, contemporaries like the Gracchi were well aware of the problems that were being caused by the replacement of thousands of family farms with vast slave-worked latifundia.  All that the profits of slavery brought the Romans, in the last 150 years of the Republic, were gross conspicuous consumption among the elite, rapidly escalating costs of pursuing a political career, and endemic civil war, as generals bribed their soldiers to fight on their behalf. 

None of Dany’s people wished to return to slavery.  They joined her standing army and the Brazen Beasts.  They didn’t defect to the invaders.

Edited by SeanF
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/6/2022 at 9:51 AM, Aldarion said:

Agreed.

I think I get the point.

Still, if it is so ingrained, how can it be permanently ended? Every time slavery was ended by force (which from what you said would appear to be the only way possible in the Slaver's Bay), it was because a major military power with ingrained anti-slavery stance came and said "nope". Be it Royal Navy or, in US case, Northern states.

In other words, unless Daenerys a) maintains armed presence and b) introduces alternative economic system, slavery will return to Slaver's Bay as soon as she leaves. And she needs to do both.

I agree to that much, nonetheless it's been proven beyond reasonable doubt that the Good Masters are never going to give up slavery and are going to fight against Dany tooth and nail. I'd say that her first problem was not necessarily find economic alternatives to it, she can always do that especially with the help of Braavos, she was on the verge of doing that with the olives design and she was naval blocked, but to believe compromise can be reached with the masters, it cannot and will not happen.

Then again, I'm wondering if the segregation that would naturally develop if slavery is curtailed but the Masters are left to redeem whatever much of that would be worse than the Feudalism in Westeros.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slavery would be a strong motivation if Illyrio wanted more profit.  There are other reasons as well.  Many believe the Targaryens are the legitimate, the only legitimate, monarchs of Westeros.  People will fight for what they believe.  It may be that in the end. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...